DescentBB

I remember long before most of you were born that a law was passed called the \"Good Samaritan\" law where a person lending aid to someone hurt, could not be sued because they tried to help and the victim suffered further injury there-in. To bad the same law-makers are not around today.

Seems the pathetically far left of the do nothing democratic party wants to squash concerned citizens reporting suspicious behavior that might be of a terrorist nature. This stems from the Flying Immams behavior on a well known airline incident. The way the leftinista's view it, such a protection of reporting supposed terrorist action will lead to the thread bare Cant of \"Profiling\" of certain racial and religious types. Thank God they were not around after Pearl Harbor was attacked.

This reminds me of a news article i read a few days ago (maybe it was posted on the DBB, i can't remember) where a women was baby sitting like 7-8 fifteen year old boys and they all gang raped her, forced her son to have sex with her and did some other disgusting things to her...

All the while she was screaming for help and the neighbors that heard her screams did nothing. One of them said something to the extent \"there are more important things to worry about then some girl screaming\"..



With everyone sue happy, people have no heart anymore. Any soul to this country has been lost in our indifference and fear of repercussions from aiding those in need. I won't point fingers at anyone with a political tone, but i do agree we as a society are going down hill.

It's particularly bad in Britain, where you can't even help yourself. I've read that a person who points a toy gun at an assailant to scare them off is committing a criminal offense there.

Yeah I can agree. It's sad where in a society that protects the criminals more then the victims.

Here in Canada, we just had a pedophile given life in prison but not branded a dangerous offender (which would have him in jail without parole for life) so that now he can apply for parole in 7 years. He had 2 boys tied up, raped them over a few days. He also admitted to doing this for 20 years.

WTF is wrong with our legal system when we always seem to have to strike a deal to get someone?

I've heard in the US if you shoot an intruder on your own property, he can sue you? WTF is that.

woodchip wrote:The way the leftinista's view it, such a protection of reporting supposed terrorist action will lead to the thread bare Cant of "Profiling" of certain racial and religious types. Thank God they were not around after Pearl Harbor was attacked.

Why? Because the racial profiling that resulted in all kinds of injustices to Japanese-American citizens (not just the prison camps) during WWII was a good thing?

Foil wrote:

woodchip wrote:The way the leftinista's view it, such a protection of reporting supposed terrorist action will lead to the thread bare Cant of "Profiling" of certain racial and religious types. Thank God they were not around after Pearl Harbor was attacked.

Why? Because the racial profiling that resulted in all kinds of injustices to Japanese-American citizens (not just the internment) during WWII was a good thing?

Bad for the damage to perfectly good american citizens yes. On the other hand when you get treatment for a cancer, good cells are also destroyed in the hope the body whole recovers.

Ah, so \"the end justifies the means\".

I'm sorry, I don't agree.

[Edit: I'd say more, but I'm at work at the moment.]

Foil wrote:Ah, so "the end justifies the means".

I'm sorry, I don't agree.

[Edit: I'd say more, but I'm at work at the moment.]

So lets use your logic in reverse, something interpreted by some as profiling is prevented (the ends)by allowing the killing of thousands and destroying the country (the means). Nice try.

That philosophy is nice until you become the means to someone else's end.

Blue wrote:That philosophy is nice until you become the means to someone else's end.

x2

Plus, "the end justifying the means" is the road to dictatorship and fanatism. If your judical system becomes a moving target, who can you trust ?

woodchip wrote:On the other hand when you get treatment for a cancer, good cells are also destroyed in the hope the body whole recovers.

Too bad people aren't cells, eh ?

Some people here really start to come across as misanthropes.

Profiling is telling the bad guys where you are looking for them.

Its a convenient practice for lazy bureaucrats.

Before we get side tracked on the profiling issue, this thread is not about profiling perse, but about people reporting suspicious behavior and being liable for it.
From the tone from some of you, it sounds like you would not have reported the Flying Immams behavior as you would not want to be guilty of \"profiling\" simply because of the middle eastern ethnicity involved.
I suppose to, you same individuals would not report suspected drug activity if African-americans were involved.
I am quite amazed at how you are so politically correct you would not try to protect your own hide if you thought notifying authoritys about actions detrimental to you, your family or your community would label you a \"rascist\". God save us from the well intentioned.

woodchip wrote:

Foil wrote:Ah, so "the end justifies the means".

I'm sorry, I don't agree.

So lets use your logic in reverse, something interpreted by some as profiling is prevented (the ends)by allowing the killing of thousands and destroying the country (the means). Nice try.

No. For one, that's not the logical "reverse", as you put it. Perhaps I need to clarify; my statement was in intended to convey the following:

The end (protecting ourselves) does not justify the means you referred to (racial and religious profiling).

Why not? Because the "means" is anything but just.


> Regarding your allegation that I would "just stand by and not say anything":

Would I report suspicious behavior that I witnessed, even if I "felt like a racist"? Yes, because that would be the right thing to do.

Would I report someone because I have unsupported suspicions about their race or religion? No!


>And regarding your last point...

Should I be liable/accountable if I make a false accusation? Hell, yes.

Removing accountability for personal actions is ridiculous. Our justice system is based on accountability and liability...

God save us from the "I'm not responsible"s.

Woodchip has done a poor job of explaining what he's talking about... too many snide comments and not enough information.

The issue at hand stems from the \"flying Imams\" incident, in which several middle-eastern men were loudly praying before an airline flight and engaged in other suspicious behavior, and some worried onlookers reported them for suspicious behavior.

Now, the \"worried onlookers\" are being sued. Congress deliberated on a bill that would extend protections to such people -- essentially, it would allow people to anonymously report suspicious behavior without worrying about being sued for it later. The bill didn't make it to a vote (with something like 47 Senate Democrats voting against cloture.)

IMO this is a very bad thing. We should not have people worrying that, if they see something suspicious, they can't report it because they might get sued.

EDIT: to answer Foil's point: IMO a person should be held liable for making a FALSE accusation (\"I saw him doing X\" when you didn't really see him doing X), but not for making a TRUE observation of suspicious behavior that turns out to be harmless (\"I saw him doing X, Y, and Z and I thought it was suspicious\" but it turns out the guy is OK.) If I call the cops and say there's some guys hanging out in the park and I think they might be gang members because they were waving around weapons, and it turns out they just have realistic-looking squirt guns, those kids shouldn't be able to turn around and sue me for calling the police. If it turns out they were waving around pool noodles and I was just calling the cops because I didn't like the one kid's haircut, I should be liable, but if I was reporting actual suspicious behavior that ends up amounting to nothing, I shouldn't.

Two separate issues:

A. Should people be worried about being liable for reporting truly suspicious behavior? No.

B. Should people be worried about being liable for making false reports based on racial and religious profiles/stereotypes? Yes.


In the case you mentioned, if it was truly suspicious, they should not be worried, because they can demonstrate that they had reasonable cause to make the reports. However, if not, they definitely need to be held responsible.

[Edit: What Lothar said.]

Lothar wrote:Woodchip has done a poor job of explaining what he's talking about... too many snide comments and not enough information.

Sorry, thought everyone here is as up to date on current affairs and the "Flying Immams incident needed no explanation

Nowhere do I construe accusing innocent people of suspicious behavior merely because one doesn't like them as proper and just. I am saying legitimate reporting behavior such as the plane incident, the Fort Dix incident:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... d=10089947

Or the Florida incident:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/06/22/miami.raids/

(I hope the links provide the information the current event indigents are lacking. )

The Flying Immans differ from the linked cases as no actual plot was uncovered. That it was not a staged event is only for the seriously brain damaged to assume. What the congress should pass is a law prohibiting terrorist-like behavior deliberately employed to get a reaction out of people. Before you nay-say me, there is a law against shouting "fire" in a crowded venue so there is a precidence.

This begs the question in my mind: \"then why is this being considered an issue?\"

If the people making a report have reasonable cause, then there is nothing to support a lawsuit against them. Thus there's no valid reason for \"lawsuit protection\".

So... even if it only pertains to cases where there was actual suspicious behavior, why is this \"lawsuit protection\" so important? Why is there such a need to protect someone who is already legally in the right?

Foil wrote:This begs the question in my mind: "then why is this being considered an issue?"

If the people making a report have reasonable cause, then there is nothing to support a lawsuit against them. Thus there's no valid reason for "lawsuit protection".

So... even if it only pertains to cases where there was actual suspicious behavior, why is this "lawsuit protection" so important? Why is there such a need to protect someone who is already legally in the right?

Because the Flying Immam's are suing the passengers and air crew members who reported them.

Probably should make a point that our media is driving the public to suspect all muslims as terrorists and they are reacting in turn to what poison has been fed to them.

If you teach a dog to bark when you ring a bell, you can't punish him if someone else rings the bell and he barks.

Foil wrote:If the people making a report have reasonable cause, then there is nothing to support a lawsuit against them.

.... Why is there such a need to protect someone who is already legally in the right?

Even frivolous lawsuits cost time and money. The threat of a lawsuit, even if you know you'll win the trial, can be intimidating.

There's a difficult balance to be struck here -- on the one hand, you don't want people making racist accusations, or using false accusations to harass people they don't like. But you also don't want people fearing to report REAL suspicious behavior because they're afraid that if it doesn't pan out they'll be sued. Perhaps lawsuits could only go forward if the law enforcement agencies involved sign off on them somehow? I don't really know, but I do know there needs to be some protection.

woodchip wrote:

Foil wrote:This begs the question in my mind: "then why is this being considered an issue?"

If the people making a report have reasonable cause, then there is nothing to support a lawsuit against them. Thus there's no valid reason for "lawsuit protection".

So... even if it only pertains to cases where there was actual suspicious behavior, why is this "lawsuit protection" so important? Why is there such a need to protect someone who is already legally in the right?

Because the Flying Immam's are suing the passengers and air crew members who reported them.

But if (as you said) they had good cause to make the report, then there is nothing to support that lawsuit, so they don't need any protection! (Except maybe the "time and money" issue Lothar mentioned).

Yes, our justice system has a lot of work to do regarding frivolous lawsuits. However, relaxing accountability for people's actions is not a good way to go about it.

\"But if (as you said) they had good cause to make the report, then there is nothing to support that lawsuit, so they don't need any protection! (Except maybe the \"time and money\" issue Lothar mentioned).\" Foil

Your, \"So they don't need protection\" is the great fallacy. Having gone thru proceedings where a case was deemed \"frivalous\" I can still attest to how much time is involved and how much leaner ones wallet becomes after the lawyers are paid. We now get back to the similarity between the \"Good Samaritan\" law and reporting terrorist activities. People are reluctant enough as it is to get involved in someone elses misary, knowing they can be deliberately set to report a activety just to be sued is going to render a lot of otherwise willing citizens to not report any suspicious activity.

Foil wrote:they don't need any protection! (Except maybe the "time and money" issue Lothar mentioned)

Which is a far cry from "they don't need any protection!" (Full stop; no caveats.)

relaxing accountability for people's actions is not a good way to go about it.

People can still be held accountable for filing false police reports, lying under oath, perjury, and so on. The police can still get on someone for wasting their time (which is why I suggested that perhaps lawsuits would require the law enforcement agencies to sign off on them.)

People must feel safe in reporting suspicious activity to the authorities. That means the government must provide them with EFFECTIVE protection from frivolous lawsuits. How exactly that needs to happen, I don't know... but I don't like the fact that a large percentage of Senate Democrats* seem to be working hard to deny that protection.


* hat tip to Hillary for doing the right thing